MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2429506352 · doi:10.1017/s031716710012030x

In-Stent Stenosis Following Covered Stent-Graft Placement

2009· article· en· W2429506352 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Justin Flood, Miguel Bussière, Patrick Teefy, Irene Gulka, Stephen P. Lownie, David M. Pelz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAstraZeneca CanadaAstraZeneca
KeywordsStentStenosisMedicineSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal carotid artery (ICA) covered stent-grafts are increasingly utilized for the endovascular management of traumatic carotid pseudoaneurysms 1 " 9 , carotid-cavernous fistulas 1012 , large petrous/cavernous carotid aneurysms 12 and carotid blow-out syndrome 7 .Early covered stent grafts were selffabricated using polytetrafluoroethylene or autologous vein mounted onto bare metal stents.Pre-mounted balloon expandable or self-expanding stent-grafts are now commercially available.Covered stents provide an alternate treatment option for high surgical risk or inaccessible lesions or when observation and anticoagulation are less than desirable.Potential advantages of covered stent grafts include minimal invasiveness, shorter hospital stays, lower cost and less post-procedural pain.Caution in the application of this relatively new technology and careful follow-up are required, however, as is illustrated by two patients with internal carotid artery stenosis following covered stent-graft placement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→